Mechanisms for targeted delivery of nanoparticles in cancer

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Volumn 19, Issue 37, 2013, Pages 6560-6574

  Beech, Jaymes R ^a,b   Shin, Soo J ^a,b   Smith, Jeffrey A ^a,b   Kelly, Kimberly A ^a,b  

^a University of Virginia   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Active targeting; Cancer; Nanoparticles; Passive targeting

Indexed keywords

ACUTE PHASE PROTEIN; ANTIBODY; APTAMER; ARGINYLGLYCYLASPARTIC ACID; BLOOD CLOTTING FACTOR; CHITOSAN; COMPLEMENT; DENDRIMER; DEXTRAN; DOXORUBICIN; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; ERLOTINIB; IMATINIB; IMMUNOGLOBULIN; IMMUNOLIPOSOME; LIPOPROTEIN; LIPOSOME; MACROGOL; NANOPARTICLE; PACLITAXEL; PEPTIDE; POLOXAMER; POLYGLACTIN; POLYSTYRENE; PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASE; QUANTUM DOT; SORAFENIB; SUPERPARAMAGNETIC IRON OXIDE NANOPARTICLE; ULTRASMALL SUPERPARAMAGNETIC IRON OXIDE; UNINDEXED DRUG;

ANTINEOPLASTIC ACTIVITY; ANTIPROLIFERATIVE ACTIVITY; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG MECHANISM; HUMAN; HYDROPHOBICITY; MICELLE; MOLECULAR IMAGING; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NONHUMAN; OPSONIZATION; PARTICLE SIZE; PASSIVE TRANSPORT; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHAGOCYTOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; SURFACE CHARGE; ZETA POTENTIAL;

ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; HUMANS; NANOPARTICLES; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84887864356     PISSN: 13816128     EISSN: 18734286     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1381612811319370002     Document Type: Review

References (139)

1. Dillman RO. Monoclonal antibodies for treating cancer. Ann Intern Med 1989; 111: 592-603.
2. Hudziak RM, Lewis GD, Winget M, Fendly BM, Shepard HM, Ullrich A. p185HER2 monoclonal antibody has antiproliferative effects in vitro and sensitizes human breast tumor cells to tumor necrosis factor. Mol Cell Biol 1989; 9: 1165-72.
3. Matsumura Y, Maeda H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res 1986; 46: 6387-92.
4. Seymour LW. Passive tumor targeting of soluble macromolecules and drug conjugates. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1992; 9: 135-87.
5. Hou Y, Liu Y, Chen Z, Gu N, Wang J. Manufacture of IRDye800CW-coupled Fe3O4 nanoparticles and their applications in cell labeling and in vivo imaging. J Nanobiotechnol 2010; 8: 25.
6. Liu D, Mori A, Huang L. Role of liposome size and RES blockade in controlling biodistribution and tumor uptake of GM1-containing liposomes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1992; 1104: 95-101.
7. Choi HS, Liu W, Misra P, et al. Renal clearance of quantum dots. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25: 1165-70.
8. Yuan F, Dellian M, Fukumura D, et al. Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size. Cancer Res 1995; 55: 3752-6.
9. McDonald DM, Baluk P. Significance of blood vessel leakiness in cancer. Cancer Res 2002; 62: 5381-5.
10. Aguilar Z. Nanomaterials for Medical Applications. Elsevier 2012.
11. Bhujwalla ZM, Artemov D, Natarajan K, Ackerstaff E, Solaiyappan M. Vascular differences detected by MRI for metastatic versus nonmetastatic breast and prostate cancer xenografts. Neoplasia 2001; 3: 143-53.
12. Do MA, Lee HJ, Yeum JH, Chang YM, Ghim HD, Choi JH. Ultrasmall Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles as MRI Contrast Enhancing Agents. Adv Materials Res 2008; 47-50: 1076-9.
13. Park JH, von Maltzahn G, Zhang L, et al. Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoworms for Tumor Targeting and Imaging. Adv Mater 2008; 20: 1630-5.
14. Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J, Rabito CA, Bengele HH, Josephson L. Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide: characterization of a new class of contrast agents for MR imaging. Radiology 1990; 175: 489-93.
15. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2491-9.
16. Petri-Fink A, Hofmann H. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs): from synthesis to in vivo studies--a summary of the synthesis, characterization, in vitro, and in vivo investigations of SPIONs with particular focus on surface and colloidal properties. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience 2007; 6: 289-97.
17. Chithrani BD, Ghazani AA, Chan WC. Determining the size and shape dependence of gold nanoparticle uptake into mammalian cells. Nano Lett 2006; 6: 662-8.
18. Osaki F, Kanamori T, Sando S, Sera T, Aoyama Y. A quantum dot conjugated sugar ball and its cellular uptake. On the size effects of endocytosis in the subviral region. J Am Chem Soc 2004; 126: 6520-1.
19. Lu F, Wu SH, Hung Y, Mou CY. Size effect on cell uptake in wellsuspended, uniform mesoporous silica nanoparticles. Small 2009; 5: 1408-13.
20. Win KY, Feng SS. Effects of particle size and surface coating on cellular uptake of polymeric nanoparticles for oral delivery of anticancer drugs. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 2713-22.
21. Fang C, Shi B, Pei YY, Hong MH, Wu J, Chen HZ. In vivo tumor targeting of tumor necrosis factor-alpha-loaded stealth nanoparticles: effect of MePEG molecular weight and particle size. Eur J Pharm Sci 2006; 27: 27-36.
22. Lundqvist M, Stigler J, Elia G, Lynch I, Cedervall T, Dawson KA. Nanoparticle size and surface properties determine the protein corona with possible implications for biological impacts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 14265-70.
23. Aggarwal P, Hall JB, McLeland CB, Dobrovolskaia MA, McNeil SE. Nanoparticle interaction with plasma proteins as it relates to particle biodistribution, biocompatibility and therapeutic efficacy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2009; 61: 428-37.
24. Chen H, Langer R, Edwards DA. A Film Tension Theory of Phagocytosis. J Colloid Interface Sci 1997; 190: 118-33.
25. Vonarbourg A, Passirani C, Saulnier P, Benoit JP. Parameters influencing the stealthiness of colloidal drug delivery systems. Biomaterials 2006; 27: 4356-73.
26. Luck M, Paulke BR, Schroder W, Blunk T, Muller RH. Analysis of plasma protein adsorption on polymeric nanoparticles with different surface characteristics. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 39: 478-85.
27. Chonn A, Cullis PR, Devine DV. The role of surface charge in the activation of the classical and alternative pathways of complement by liposomes. J Immunol 1991; 146: 4234-41.
28. He C, Hu Y, Yin L, Tang C, Yin C. Effects of particle size and surface charge on cellular uptake and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 3657-66.
29. Villanueva A, Canete M, Roca AG, et al. The influence of surface functionalization on the enhanced internalization of magnetic nanoparticles in cancer cells. Nanotechnology 2009; 20: 115103.
30. Wang M, Thanou M. Targeting nanoparticles to cancer. Pharmacol Res 2010; 62: 90-9.
31. Owens DE, 3rd, Peppas NA. Opsonization, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics of polymeric nanoparticles. Int J Pharm 2006; 307: 93-102.
32. Liu Y, Shipton MK, Ryan J, Kaufman ED, Franzen S, Feldheim DL. Synthesis, stability, and cellular internalization of gold nanoparticles containing mixed peptide-poly(ethylene glycol) monolayers. Anal Chem 2007; 79: 2221-9.
33. Shi X, Wang S, Haiping S, Baker JR. Improved biocompatibility of surface functionalized dendrimer entrapped gold nanoparticles. Soft Matter 2006; 3: 71-74.
34. Thorek DL, Tsourkas A. Size, charge and concentration dependent uptake of iron oxide particles by non-phagocytic cells. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 3583-90.
35. Cui F, Qian F, Yin C. Preparation and characterization of mucoadhesive polymer-coated nanoparticles. Int J Pharm 2006; 316: 154-61.
36. Moyano DF, Goldsmith M, Solfiell DJ, et al. Nanoparticle hydrophobicity dictates immune response. J Am Chem Soc 2012; 134: 3965-7.
37. Tabata Y, Ikada Y. Effect of the size and surface charge of polymer microspheres on their phagocytosis by macrophage. Biomaterials 1988; 9: 356-62.
38. Absolom DR, van Oss CJ, Zingg W, Neumann AW. Phagocytosis as a surface phenomenon: opsonization by aspecific adsorption of IgG as a function of bacterial hydrophobicity. J Reticuloendothel Soc 1982; 31: 59-70.
39. Song M, Moon WK, Kim Y, Lim D, Song IC, Yoon BW. Labeling efficacy of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles to human neural stem cells: comparison of ferumoxides, monocrystalline iron oxide, cross-linked iron oxide (CLIO)-NH2 and tat-CLIO. Korean J Radiol 2007; 8: 365-71.
40. Rolland JP, Maynor BW, Euliss LE, Exner AE, Denison GM, DeSimone JM. Direct fabrication and harvesting of monodisperse, shape-specific nanobiomaterials. J Am Chem Soc 2005; 127: 10096-100.
41. Tao L, Hu W, Liu Y, Huang G, Sumer BD, Gao J. Shape-specific polymeric nanomedicine: emerging opportunities and challenges. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2011; 236: 20-9.
42. Champion JA, Katare YK, Mitragotri S. Particle shape: a new design parameter for micro-and nanoscale drug delivery carriers. J Control Release 2007; 121: 3-9.
43. Geng Y, Dalhaimer P, Cai S, et al. Shape effects of filaments versus spherical particles in flow and drug delivery. Nat Nanotechnol 2007; 2: 249-55.
44. Petros RA, DeSimone JM. Strategies in the design of nanoparticles for therapeutic applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: 615-27.
45. Mody NAaK, M. R. Three-dimensional simulations of a plateletshaped spheroid near a wall in shear flow. Physics of Fluids 2005; 17: 113302.
46. Shah S, Liu Y, Hu W, Gao J. Modeling particle shape-dependent dynamics in nanomedicine. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2011; 11: 919-28.
47. Doshi N, Mitragotri S. Macrophages recognize size and shape of their targets. PLoS One 2010; 5: e10051.
48. Champion JA, Mitragotri S. Role of target geometry in phagocytosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 4930-4.
49. Decuzzi P, Ferrari M. The receptor-mediated endocytosis of nonspherical particles. Biophys J 2008; 94: 3790-7.
50. Decuzzi P, Godin B, Tanaka, T, et al. Size and shape effects in the biodistribution of intravascularly injected particles. J Control Release 2010; 141; 320-327.
51. Muro S, Garnacho C, Champion JA, et al. Control of endothelial targeting and intracellular delivery of therapeutic enzymes by modulating the size and shape of ICAM-1-targeted carriers. Mol Ther 2008; 16: 1450-8.
52. Merkel TJ, Jones SW, Herlihy KP, et al. Using mechanobiological mimicry of red blood cells to extend circulation times of hydrogel microparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011; 108: 586-91.
53. Devarajan PV, Jindal AB, Patil RR, Mulla F, Gaikwad RV, Samad A. Particle shape: a new design parameter for passive targeting in splenotropic drug delivery. J Pharm Sci 2010; 99: 2576-81.
54. Bedard MF. On the mechanical stability of polymeric microcontainers functionalized with nanoparticles. Soft Matter 2009; 5: 148-55.
55. Trabbic-Carlson K, Setton LA, Chilkoti A. Swelling and mechanical behaviors of chemically cross-linked hydrogels of elastin-like polypeptides. Biomacromolecules 2003; 4: 572-80.
56. Best JP, Yan Y, Caruso F. The role of particle geometry and mechanics in the biological domain. Adv Healthc Mater 2012; 1: 35-47.
57. Banquy X, Zhu XX, Giasson S. Mechanical and frictional properties of nanoparticle monolayers grafted on functionalized mica substrates. J Phys Chem B 2008; 112: 12208-16.
58. Konishi M, Tabata Y, Kariya M, et al. In vivo anti-tumor effect through the controlled release of cisplatin from biodegradable gelatin hydrogel. J Control Release 2003; 92: 301-13.
59. Dailey LA, Jekel N, Fink L, et al. Investigation of the proinflammatory potential of biodegradable nanoparticle drug delivery systems in the lung. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2006; 215: 100-8.
60. Saad M, Garbuzenko OB, Ber E, et al. Receptor targeted polymers, dendrimers, liposomes: which nanocarrier is the most efficient for tumor-specific treatment and imaging? J Control Release 2008; 130: 107-14.
61. Engin K, Leeper DB, Cater JR, Thistlethwaite AJ, Tupchong L, McFarlane JD. Extracellular pH distribution in human tumours. Int J Hyperthermia 1995; 11: 211-6.
62. Lee ES, Na K, Bae YH. Polymeric micelle for tumor pH and folate-mediated targeting. J Control Release 2003; 91: 103-13.
63. Lee ES, Na K, Bae YH. Doxorubicin loaded pH-sensitive polymeric micelles for reversal of resistant MCF-7 tumor. J Control Release 2005; 103: 405-18.
64. Kirpotin D, Hong K, Mullah N, Papahadjopoulos D, Zalipsky S. Liposomes with detachable polymer coating: destabilization and fusion of dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine vesicles triggered by cleavage of surface-grafted poly(ethylene glycol). FEBS Lett 1996; 388: 115-8.
65. Bondurant B, Mueller A, O'Brien DF. Photoinitiated destabilization of sterically stabilized liposomes. Biochim Biophys Acta 2001; 1511: 113-22.
66. Kong G, Anyarambhatla G, Petros WP, et al. Efficacy of liposomes and hyperthermia in a human tumor xenograft model: importance of triggered drug release. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 6950-7.
67. Andresen TL, Jensen SS, Jorgensen K. Advanced strategies in liposomal cancer therapy: problems and prospects of active and tumor specific drug release. Prog Lipid Res 2005; 44: 68-97.
68. Toy R, Hayden E, Shoup C, Baskaran H, Karathanasis E. The effects of particle size, density and shape on margination of nanoparticles in microcirculation. Nanotechnology 2011; 22: 115101.
69. Hoek EM, Agarwal GK. Extended DLVO interactions between spherical particles and rough surfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 2006; 298: 50-8.
70. Zwick E, Bange J, Ullrich A. Receptor tyrosine kinase signalling as a target for cancer intervention strategies. Endocr Relat Cancer 2001; 8: 161-73.
71. Tolliday N, Clemons PA, Ferraiolo P, et al. Small molecules, big players: the National Cancer Institute's Initiative for Chemical Genetics. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 8935-42.
72. Ishikawa M, Hashimoto Y. Improvement in aqueous solubility in small molecule drug discovery programs by disruption of molecular planarity and symmetry. J Med Chem 2011; 54: 1539-54.
73. Druker BJ. STI571 (Gleevec) as a paradigm for cancer therapy. Trends Mol Med 2002; 8: S14-8.
74. Facchino S, Abdouh M, Bernier G. Brain Cancer Stem Cells: Current Status on Glioblastoma Multiforme. Cancers 2011; 3: 1777-97.
75. Druker BJ, Sawyers CL, Kantarjian H, et al. Activity of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in the blast crisis of chronic myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia with the Philadelphia chromosome. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1038-42.
76. Ottmann OG, Wassmann B. Imatinib in the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: current status and evolving concepts. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2002; 15: 757-69.
77. von Bubnoff N, Schneller F, Peschel C, Duyster J. BCR-ABL gene mutations in relation to clinical resistance of Philadelphiachromosome-positive leukaemia to STI571: a prospective study. Lancet 2002; 359: 487-91.
78. Hochhaus A, Kreil S, Corbin AS, et al. Molecular and chromosomal mechanisms of resistance to imatinib (STI571) therapy. Leukemia 2002; 16: 2190-6.
79. Mahon FX, Deininger MW, Schultheis B, et al. Selection and characterization of BCR-ABL positive cell lines with differential sensitivity to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571: diverse mechanisms of resistance. Blood 2000; 96: 1070-9.
80. Westbrook CA, Hooberman AL, Spino C, et al. Clinical significance of the BCR-ABL fusion gene in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study (8762). Blood 1992; 80: 2983-90.
81. Roberts PJ, Der CJ. Targeting the Raf-MEK-ERK mitogenactivated protein kinase cascade for the treatment of cancer. Oncogene 2007; 26: 3291-310.
82. Kim H, Kim MD, Choi CW, et al. Antitumor activity of sorafenibincorporated nanoparticles of dextran/poly(dl-lactide-co-glycolide) block copolymer. Nanoscale Res Lett 2012; 7: 91.
83. Mehta VK. Radiotherapy and erlotinib combined: review of the preclinical and clinical evidence. Front Oncol 2012; 2: 31.
84. Gregory M, Sheeba CJ, Kalaichelvan VK, Manavalan R, Reddy PN, Franklin G. Poly(D, L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) Nanoencapsulation Reduces Erlotinib-Induced Subacute Toxicity in Rat. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2009; 5: 1-8.
85. Kelemen LE. The role of folate receptor alpha in cancer development, progression and treatment: cause, consequence or innocent bystander? Int J Cancer 2006; 119: 243-50.
86. Choi SW, Mason JB. Folate and carcinogenesis: an integrated scheme. J Nutr 2000; 130: 129-32.
87. Zhao R, Min SH, Wang Y, Campanella E, Low PS, Goldman ID. A role for the proton-coupled folate transporter (PCFT-SLC46A1) in folate receptor-mediated endocytosis. J Biol Chem 2009; 284: 4267-74.
88. www.clinicaltrials.gov.
89. Sun C, Sze R, Zhang M. Folic acid-PEG conjugated superparamagnetic nanoparticles for targeted cellular uptake and detection by MRI. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006; 78: 550-7.
90. Meier R, Henning TD, Boddington S, et al. Breast cancers: MR imaging of folate-receptor expression with the folate-specific nanoparticle P1133. Radiology 2010; 255: 527-35.
91. Shen JM, Guan XM, Liu XY, Lan JF, Cheng T, Zhang HX. Luminescent/Magnetic Hybrid Nanoparticles with Folate-Conjugated Peptide Composites for Tumor-Targeted Drug Delivery. Bioconjug Chem 2012.
92. Galbiati A, Tabolacci C, Morozzo Della Rocca B, et al. Targeting tumor cells through chitosan-folate modified microcapsules loaded with camptothecin. Bioconjug Chem 2011; 22: 1066-72.
93. Bandyopadhyay K, Gjerset RA. Protein kinase CK2 is a central regulator of topoisomerase I hyperphosphorylation and camptothecin sensitivity in cancer cell lines. Biochemistry 2011; 50: 704-14.
94. Nimjee SM, Rusconi CP, Sullenger BA. Aptamers: an emerging class of therapeutics. Annu Rev Med 2005; 56: 555-83.
95. Ellington AD, Szostak JW. In vitro selection of RNA molecules that bind specific ligands. Nature 1990; 346: 818-22.
96. Tuerk C, Gold L. Systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment: RNA ligands to bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase. Science 1990; 249: 505-10.
97. Opazo F, Levy M, Byrom M, et al. Aptamers as potential tools for super-resolution microscopy. Nat Methods 2012; 9: 938-9.
98. Ireson CR, Kelland LR. Discovery and development of anticancer aptamers. Mol Cancer Ther 2006; 5: 2957-62.
99. Missailidis S, Hardy A. Aptamers as inhibitors of target proteins. Expert Opin Ther Pat 2009; 19: 1073-82.
100. Soundararajan S, Wang L, Sridharan V, et al. Plasma membrane nucleolin is a receptor for the anticancer aptamer AS1411 in MV4-11 leukemia cells. Mol Pharmacol 2009; 76: 984-91.
101. Hwang DW, Ko HY, Lee JH, et al. A Nucleolin-Targeted Multimodal Nanoparticle Imaging Probe for Tracking Cancer Cells Using an Aptamer. The Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2010; 51: 98-105.
102. Zaretsky JZ, Barnea I, Aylon Y, Gorivodsky M, Wreschner DH, Keydar I. MUC1 gene overexpressed in breast cancer: structure and transcriptional activity of the MUC1 promoter and role of estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) in regulation of the MUC1 gene expression. Mol Cancer 2006; 5: 57.
103. Reddy PK, Gold DV, Cardillo TM, Goldenberg DM, Li H, Burton JD. Interferon-gamma upregulates MUC1 expression in haematopoietic and epithelial cancer cell lines, an effect associated with MUC1 mRNA induction. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39: 397-404.
104. Ferreira CS, Matthews CS, Missailidis S. DNA aptamers that bind to MUC1 tumour marker: design and characterization of MUC1-binding single-stranded DNA aptamers. Tumour Biol 2006; 27: 289-301.
105. Yu C, Hu Y, Duan J, et al. Novel aptamer-nanoparticle bioconjugates enhances delivery of anticancer drug to MUC1-positive cancer cells in vitro. PLoS One 2011; 6: e24077.
106. Savla R, Taratula O, Garbuzenko O, Minko T. Tumor targeted quantum dot-mucin 1 aptamer-doxorubicin conjugate for imaging and treatment of cancer. J Control Release 2011; 153: 16-22.
107. Bergers G, Benjamin LE. Tumorigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nat Rev Cancer 2003; 3: 401-10.
108. De S, Razorenova O, McCabe NP, O'Toole T, Qin J, Byzova TV. VEGF-integrin interplay controls tumor growth and vascularization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102: 7589-94.
109. Cai W, Chen X. Multimodality molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 Suppl 2: 113S-28S.
110. Ng EW, Shima DT, Calias P, Cunningham ET, Jr., Guyer DR, Adamis AP. Pegaptanib, a targeted anti-VEGF aptamer for ocular vascular disease. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 123-32.
111. Liu S. Radiolabeled cyclic RGD peptides as integrin alpha(v)beta(3)-targeted radiotracers: maximizing binding affinity via bivalency. Bioconjug Chem 2009; 20: 2199-213.
112. Kok RJ, Schraa AJ, Bos EJ, et al. Preparation and functional evaluation of RGD-modified proteins as alpha(v)beta(3) integrin directed therapeutics. Bioconjug Chem 2002; 13: 128-35.
113. Han HD, Mangala LS, Lee JW, et al. Targeted gene silencing using RGD-labeled chitosan nanoparticles. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 3910-22.
114. Chin FT, Shen B, Liu S, et al. First experience with clinical-grade ([18F]FPP(RGD(2): an automated multi-step radiosynthesis for clinical PET studies. Mol Imaging Biol 2012; 14: 88-95.
115. Carter A. Integrins as Target: First Phase III Trial Launches, but Questions Remain. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010; 102: 675-7.
116. Mas-Moruno C, Rechenmacher F, Kessler H. Cilengitide: the first anti-angiogenic small molecule drug candidate design, synthesis and clinical evaluation. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2010; 10: 753-68.
117. Kelly KA, Bardeesy N, Anbazhagan R, et al. Targeted nanoparticles for imaging incipient pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e85.
118. Bausch D, Thomas S, Mino-Kenudson M, et al. Plectin-1 as a novel biomarker for pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 302-9.
119. Jie LY, Cai LL, Wang LJ, et al. Actively-targeted LTVSPWY peptide-modified magnetic nanoparticles for tumor imaging. Int J Nanomedicine 2012; 7: 3981-9.
120. Aina OH, Sroka TC, Chen ML, Lam KS. Therapeutic cancer targeting peptides. Biopolymers 2002; 66: 184-99.
121. Pan L, He Q, Liu J, et al. Nuclear-targeted drug delivery of TAT peptide-conjugated monodisperse mesoporous silica nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 2012; 134: 5722-5.
122. Nakielny S, Dreyfuss G. Transport of proteins and RNAs in and out of the nucleus. Cell 1999; 99: 677-90.
123. Magdelaine-Beuzelin C, Kaas Q, Wehbi V, et al. Structurefunction relationships of the variable domains of monoclonal antibodies approved for cancer treatment. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2007; 64: 210-25.
124. Kirpotin DB, Drummond DC, Shao Y, et al. Antibody targeting of long-circulating lipidic nanoparticles does not increase tumor localization but does increase internalization in animal models. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 6732-40.
125. Wang Y, Byrne JD, Napier ME, DeSimone JM. Engineering nanomedicines using stimuli-responsive biomaterials. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2012; 64: 1021-30.
126. Chen G, Chen W, Wu Z, et al. MRI-visible polymeric vector bearing CD3 single chain antibody for gene delivery to T cells for immunosuppression. Biomaterials 2009; 30: 1962-70.
127. Rodrigues CM, Matias BF, Murta EF, Michelin MA. The role of T lymphocytes in cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy with autologous dendritic cells. Clin Med Insights Oncol 2011; 5: 107-15.
128. Takae S, Akiyama Y, Otsuka H, Nakamura T, Nagasaki Y, Kataoka K. Ligand density effect on biorecognition by PEGylated gold nanoparticles: regulated interaction of RCA120 lectin with lactose installed to the distal end of tethered PEG strands on gold surface. Biomacromolecules 2005; 6: 818-24.
129. Yuan H, Li J, Bao G, Zhang S. Variable nanoparticle-cell adhesion strength regulates cellular uptake. Phys Rev Lett 2010; 105: 138101.
130. Fakhari A, Baoum A, Siahaan TJ, Le KB, Berkland C. Controlling ligand surface density optimizes nanoparticle binding to ICAM-1. J Pharm Sci 2011; 100: 1045-56.
131. Elias DR, Poloukhtine A, Popik V, Tsourkas A. Effect of ligand density, receptor density, and nanoparticle size on cell targeting. Nanomedicine 2012.
132. Lopes de Menezes DE, Pilarski LM, Allen TM. In vitro and in vivo targeting of immunoliposomal doxorubicin to human B-cell lymphoma. Cancer Res 1998; 58: 3320-30.
133. Park JW, Hong K, Kirpotin DB, et al. Anti-HER2 immunoliposomes: enhanced efficacy attributable to targeted delivery. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8: 1172-81.
134. Costantini DL, Bateman K, McLarty K, Vallis KA, Reilly RM. Trastuzumab-resistant breast cancer cells remain sensitive to the auger electron-emitting radiotherapeutic agent 111In-NLStrastuzumab and are radiosensitized by methotrexate. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1498-505.
135. Zhang L, Gu FX, Chan JM, Wang AZ, Langer RS, Farokhzad OC. Nanoparticles in medicine: therapeutic applications and developments. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 83: 761-9.
136. Cheng Z, Al Zaki A, Hui JZ, Muzykantov VR, Tsourkas A. Multifunctional nanoparticles: cost versus benefit of adding targeting and imaging capabilities. Science 2012; 338: 903-10.
137. Shi J, Xiao Z, Kamaly N, Farokhzad OC. Self-assembled targeted nanoparticles: evolution of technologies and bench to bedside translation. Acc Chem Res 2011; 44: 1123-34.
138. clinicaltrials. gov. NCT01702129.
139. Sankhala KK MA, Adinin R, Wood L, et al. A Phase I pharmacokinetic (PK) study of MBP-426, a novel liposome encapsulated oxaliplatin. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2535.